20 wins seasons

Is using 20 win seasons to evaluate a pitcher outdated?

If using it as the sole source of evaluating a pitcher, yes...although I doubt anyone with any real baseball brains would have ever done that in the first place.

But 20 wins is still 20 wins.

While not now, nor ever, the sole deciding factor, I think it means more than ever. Baseball is no longer the team sport it once was...less strategy, more individual accomplishment. Subsequently, the guys on the mound can have an extremely strong outing and still not get a checkmark in the W column.

slopho said:

Is using 20 win seasons to evaluate a pitcher outdated?

Click to expand...

Ws do matter and they define a pitcher. Say for example a pitcher has a 1.03 ERA but is only 10-9 on the season with 10 no-decisions. He will be considered a good pitcher but not a money or great pitcher. The quality of the team is normally a reflection of the perception of the pitcher.

Remember when Clemens pitched for the Astros a few years back........he had at least 10 no-decisions in games he was winning. No one remembers your ERA when your wins aren't there.

Nolan Ryan's 1987 season:
5th in Cy Young Voting
1st in ERA 2.76
3rd in WHIP 1.139
1st in H/9IP 6.55
1st in K/9IP 11.48
9th in IP 211.2
1st in Ks 270
8th in Games Started 34
1st in K/BB 3.10
1st in ERA+ 142
4th oldest player in NL

He finished 8-16 in 1987. The Astros scored 27 runs in his 16 losses. Only 3 times did they score 3 runs in a game he lost, and they never scored more than 5 runs in a loss.

My point is that a pitcher can have a great season and have a terrible W-L record.

A pitcher can win also 20 games and have a mediocre season statistically. Since 1980, there have been 2485 times that a pitcher qualified in a season for the ERA title. 131 times (or 5.3%), a pitcher has posted an ERA+ of 150. However, only 31 times did a pitcher have an ERA+ over 150 and won 20 games (about once per season). The median win total of those 131 seasons having an ERA+ over 150 is 17 wins (meaning half the pitchers won more than 17 games, and half won less than 17 games).

Since 1980, a pitcher has won 20 games 105 times. The median ERA+ for those 105 occurrences is 133. If you look at all the seasons a pitcher has had an ERA+ of 133 or higher (347 times), the median win total is just 16 games. From that data, it appears that having a solid statistical year (not including victories) gets you about 16 wins. The other 4 wins come from either playing on a good team or benefiting from a bit of good luck.

What I can tell you is that nothing matters more to the Cy Young voting than wins. A starting pitcher that wins the CYA is rarely lower than 3rd in their league's Victory Leaders.

David

I'd rather use quality starts to be honest (in terms of similar statistics). However most casual fans will not embrace deeper or newer stats.

slopho said:

Is using 20 win seasons to evaluate a pitcher outdated?

Click to expand...

The answer is obviously 'no'.

But it certinly is not the end all - be all to evaluation. Just another factor.


As someone allready said, '20 wins, is still 20 wins'...